Photoshop benches: Dual G5 2.0 vs. Dual Xeon 3.06 and others: G5 wins.

[Eug]

There is a thread over at Ars with PSBench results submitted for a bazillion computers.

PSBench runs a series of Photoshop filters and records the time. The first 12 filters are the more commonly used filters. The last 9 are used infrequently, but take more time.

Now the benches include a dual Power Mac G5 2.0 and a dual Xeon 3.06. The dual G5 destroys the dual Xeon in the first 12 tests, and is slightly faster in the last 9. Overall the dual G5 is moderately faster using the normalized scores which give each test equal weight, but interestingly the overall test completion times are similar between the dual Xeon and the dual G5.

A single Athlon 1 GHz scores 100
A single Athlon XP 3200+ scores 332
A single G5 1.8 scores 344
A single P4 3.2 scores 427
A dual Xeon 3.06 scores 488
A dual G5 2.0 scores 547

 

[Ryan]

No dual Athlon 64 :frown:

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
No dual Athlon 64 :frown:

u mean opteron? thats prolly cuz it destroys the g5

im jk, i really dont know what it could do in photoshop.

MIKE

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
No dual Athlon 64 :frown:

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
No dual Athlon 64 :frown:

Yeah, a dual Athlon64 2 GHz should kick some serious booty, but unfortunately, nobody in the thread has one.

 

[MikeMike]

thats cuz there CANT be a dual athlon 64, nor would anyone have one right now.

lets just try to get the names a lil straight so as to not confuse the newbs.

MIKE

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
thats cuz there CANT be a dual athlon 64, nor would anyone have one right now.

lets just try to get the names a lil straight so as to not confuse the newbs.

MIKE

OK sorry. Dual Opteron 2.0 (or 2.2).

However, it should be noted that a single Opteron 1.8 is slower than a single G5 1.8:

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 547 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 471
3200 P4 (800MHz) 427
3000 P4 (800MHz) 405
3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06) 386
3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB) 358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420) 348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25) 346
1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4 338
2x 2400+Athlon MP 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j 337
3200+Athlon XP 332
1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
3000+Athlon XP 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5 318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1 316
2x 1800 Athlon MP 312
2800+Athlon XP Barton 298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon 286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP 283
2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400) 282
2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280
2x 1466 Athlon XP 279
1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin 276 *MacNNscores
2666 P4 (DDR 333) 269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2 267
2400+Athlon XP 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9 260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5 254
2400+Athlon 252
2400 P4B (800MHz) 251
2400b (sis 648 DDR400) 251
1600 Centrino IBM T40 250
2400 P4 (533MHz bus) 249
2400 P4 B 241
2340 P4 (overclock) 239
1600 Centrino Dell D800 236
2400 P4 234
1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz) 226
1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat) 221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded) 218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
1548 Athlon XP 214
1670 Athlon XP (2000+) 213
1667 Athlon XP 211
1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro 200
1x 1533 Athlon MP 197
1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A 196
1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6 196
2000 P4 Xeon 194
1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE 191
1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2 185
2x 533 G4 OSX 10.1.5 175
2x 533 G4 OS 9.2.2 174
1800 P4 173
1200 AthlonMP 168
1508 Celeron (overclock) 167
1400 PIII Tualatin 160 **?
2x 550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube) 160 **?
2x 500 G4 OSX 152
2x 450 G4 OS9 151
1333 Athlon TBird 147
2x 450 G4 OSX 10.1.5 143
800 G4 Pbook OSX 1MB L3 135
733 G4 (miro7) 134
667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3 127
667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3 125
466 G4 OS9 123
667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3 121
866 PIII 114
466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus 112
550 G4 Powrbk OS9* 104
500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400) 103
1x 450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus 101
1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01) 100
550 G4 Powrbk OSX* 95
933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony 78
700 G3 iBook 74
600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j 70
233 PII 30

 

[MikeMike]

by only 12 points and whatever (energy settings highest perf) means.

MIKE

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
by only 12 points and whatever (energy settings highest perf) means.

Yeah, but what that means is that a dual G5 2.0 might beat a dual Opteron 2.0 too. It wouldn't beat a dual Opteron 2.2 though.

There is a setting in OS X to keep the G5 running at full speed, if you set it at "Highest Performance". If you set it to "Automatic" it drops down to 1.3 GHz normally and scales up to 2.0 GHz when you start using the machine heavily. (The case fans speed up with temperature, so keeping it at 1.3 GHz at idle potentially reduces fan noise.)

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Is the G5 running a 64 bit OS and 64 bit build of photoshop? If so, the most interesting comparison would be Dual G5 vs Dual Opteron running 64Bit XP and a 64Bit version of photoshop.

I know which one my money would be on...

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
Is the G5 running a 64 bit OS and 64 bit build of photoshop? If so, the most interesting comparison would be Dual G5 vs Dual Opteron running 64Bit XP and a 64Bit version of photoshop.

I know which one my money would be on...

Kind of a strange question, 64-bit XP does not exist (yet), and neither does 64-bit Photoshop. Both the G5 and the Opteron are 64-bit chips though. (OS X has some 64-bit extensions but it is not a full 64-bit OS.)

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Eug
A single Athlon 1 GHz scores 100
A single Athlon XP 3200+ scores 332
A single G5 1.8 scores 344
A single P4 3.2 scores 427
A dual Xeon 3.06 scores 488
A dual G5 2.0 scores 547

I always find it interesting which numbers you pull out. One could just as easilly look at those and say the single 3.2 GHz P4 destoys the single G5. I'm not trying to say you are biased (and I don't want to make a bias for myself). But instead it possibly shows the dual Xeon is castrated with both processors trying to access memory from the slower 533 MHZ fsb. While the G5 scales from one processor to dual processor quite well.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Eug
A single Athlon 1 GHz scores 100
A single Athlon XP 3200+ scores 332
A single G5 1.8 scores 344
A single P4 3.2 scores 427
A dual Xeon 3.06 scores 488
A dual G5 2.0 scores 547

I always find it interesting which numbers you pull out. One could just as easilly look at those and say the single 3.2 GHz P4 destoys the single G5. I'm not trying to say you are biased (and I don't want to make a bias for myself). But instead it possibly shows the dual Xeon is castrated with both processors trying to access memory from the slower 533 MHZ fsb. While the G5 scales from one processor to dual processor quite well.

Of course I'm biased. I prefer OS X to Windows (although I own both types of machines and use both every day).

However, my point was to point out the performance crown. It used to be the dual Xeon until the dual G5 was tested. I would not be surprised though if the dual Opteron 2.2 beats it when it comes out. And I also posted the P4 3.2 and G5 1.8 scores for your viewing enjoyment. If I were trying to hide something, I wouldn't have bothered posting it.

Yes, the Xeon is castrated by the bus speed, but that's not the G5's fault, and a dual Xeon toasts a single P4 3.2 (obviously) anyways, so the P4 3.2 isn't even in the running for the crown. What I also failed to mention was the dual Xeon had HT too. It's the fastest Intel has got, until you start talking Itanium or something. I simply compared the fastest Mac to the fastest Xeon.

If it makes you feel any better, a dual Xeon beats the living crap out of the dual G5 in Cinebench. An optimized version for the G5 is coming, but Maxon says the dual Xeon should still beat it even after the optimizations.

 

[Ionizer86]

I find it interesting that the Tbird 1.0 gets a 100 and the 3200+, which only runs at 2.2Ghz (120% more clock), gets 332. Maybe this bench indicates good scaling with dual G5's along with needing a strong SSE unit (which the Tbird lacks).

 

[NFS4]

What I find interesting is that Mac fanboy/crackheads can ONLY use Photoshop as a means to "destroy" PCs.

Don't they have anything else to grab ahold to...besides Steve Jobs' wang I mean

 

[Alkali]

Actually there is a 64-bit Windows XP out there but the retail one is only sold with Itanium Workstations. There is of course a beta available too if you are in the Microsoft beta programme for OS's.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: NFS4
What I find interesting is that Mac fanboy/crackheads can ONLY use Photoshop as a means to "destroy" PCs.

From here:

Testing Cray X1 vs. 1.3 GHz Itanium 2 vs. 1.8 G5:

For the small memory job, the 1.3GHz Itanium2 (SGI Altix) is twice the speed of the G5 and the 900MHz Itanium2 (SGI Altix) is roughly 50% faster.

For the medium memory job the performance of the G5 and 900MHz Itanium are effectively equivalent, while the 1.3GHz Itanium is 15 percent faster.

For the large memory job, the performance of the G5 is nearly twice the speed of the 900MHz Itanium and is 1.48 times the speed of the 1.3GHz Itanium2.

And from here, testing single CPUs only with ARC2D, a computational fluid dynamics bench.

System L XL XXL
--------------------------------------------------------
Quad 1.6GHz Opteron 0.33 1.5 17.98
Dual 3.06GHz Xeon 0.28 1.33 14.48
3.2GHz P4 0.28 1.33 10.37*
2.66GHz P4 0.33 1.85 17.58
Dual 1.25GHz G4 0.44 2.46 29.81
1.8GHz G5 0.26 1.44 13.02
Dual 2GHz G5 0.23* 1.29* 11.66

* = fastest

 

[Budman]

How fast does it run HL2 with an Nvidia card?

 

[Pariah]

It's the fastest Intel has got, until you start talking Itanium or something. I simply compared the fastest Mac to the fastest Xeon.

No it isn't. The fastest Intel has is the 1MB L2 3.06 Xeon. If the GamePC benchmarks are to be believed (no endorsement from me), then it is about 8% faster in PS7 than the standard 512KB. This would put it pretty close to the G5. More interesting is that the 1.6GHz dual Opteron is about 10% faster than the standard 3.06 which would imply the 1.8GHz dual Opteron would already be faster than the G5, and a 2.2GHz version would blow by it by a large margin.

 

[Budman]

Dawn on a Dual G5

Dawn on a PC

 

[Tab]

Damn, that Dawn chick is hawt...


Anyway, we need some P4 Extreme Edition and Dualie Opterons BenchMarks

 

[Dennis Travis]

I have always noticed the same thing. They always use Photoshop to show the mac blow down the PC. I love Photoshop by the way and am not bashing it in any way but it makes me wonder sometimes why the Mac seems to only beat the PC with Photoshop and not much else. Maybe some optimizations for it?? With other Apps the Mac usually does not fare as well against Intel or AMD.

I want to see some other tests with different applications before I make any judgement.

PS.

Funny Budman!! I bet the G5 with the Nvidia and HL2 would blow everything away! Jobs would make sure it did!

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

I have always noticed the same thing. They always use Photoshop to show the mac blow down the PC. I love Photoshop by the way and am not bashing it in any way but it makes me wonder sometimes why the Mac seems to only beat the PC with Photoshop and not much else.

Because Photochop is a mac-native program and was later "ported" over to the PC side. "Ported" versions of something never work as well as thier original predecessors.

 

[Dug]

Nice benchmark. To bad I can't get that much production done in one run with Photoshop.

My hand and mind can't think that fast. Therefore Photoshop seems to run the fastest on the machine that has the most ram and fastest hard drive for me.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Budman
How fast does it run HL2 with an Nvidia card?

LOL :beer: